On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would say that a GUC variable for such behavior as listed in the TODO
> > is overzealous. We should either enforce it, or not. As we do not now,
> > there is no reason imo to change it.
> Not only is it overzealous, but the proposal to have one reflects a
> failure to learn from history.  GUC variables that change
> transaction-boundary semantics are a bad idea, period: see autocommit.

Nod. Let's get this TODO removed.


Joshua D. Drake

>                       regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>                http://archives.postgresql.org

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to